DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
1. This action is responsive to application filed June 7, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “initial solution generation unit” and “optimal solution search unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the entire claimed function and clearly link the structure material or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states that the claimed function of providing an initial value of a search and calculate an optimal solution. The disclosure of the application does not describe a particular structure for the function and does not provide enough description for one of the ordinary skill in the art to understand which structure or structures perform the claimed function(s). Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
If applicant wishes to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to include the phrase “means for” or “step for”. The phrase “means for” or “step for” must be modified by functional language, and the phrase or term must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; or
(b) Present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation is written as a function to be performed and the claim does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
3. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of providing an initial value of a search and calculate an optimal solution. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of the ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite “generates an initial solution for providing an initial value for a search process to search for the optimal solution; calculates the optimal solution through the search process using the initial solution, generates the initial solution using a previous optimal solution calculated by the optimal solution search unit”.
The recited limitations above are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “calculation device”, “initial solution generation unit” and “optimal solution search unit” in claim 1; “control system “ in claim 7, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “generate”, “calculate” and “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user to mentally generate an initial solution, calculate an optimal solution and generate the initial solution.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements- “calculation device”, “initial solution generation unit” and “optimal solution search unit” in claim 1; “control system “ in claim 7 to perform the above recited steps. The computer elements recited at a high-level of generality (generic computer elements performing a generic computer function of generating an initial solution such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the computer elements to perform the steps of claim 1 and 7 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
5. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pei et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0080271 (referred to hereafter as Pei)
As to claims 1 and 7, Pei teaches an optimal solution calculation device for repeatedly calculating an optimal solution that minimizes an evaluation function having a time-varying parameter at regular intervals, the optimal solution calculation device comprising:
an initial solution generation unit that generates an initial solution for providing an initial value for a search process to search for the optimal solution (see para. 7-13 and 19-20); and
an optimal solution search unit that calculates the optimal solution through the search process using the initial solution (see para. 7-13 and 19-20),
wherein: the initial solution generation unit generates the initial solution using a previous optimal solution calculated by the optimal solution search unit (see para. 7-13 and 19-20).
As to claim 2, Pei teaches the optimal solution calculation device according to claim 1, wherein: the optimal solution search unit assigns a solution candidate to each processor element; and the optimal solution search unit executes a process of repeating the search process using an assigned solution candidate a predetermined number of times in parallel for each processor element (see para. 4 and 119).
As to claim 3, Pei teaches the optimal solution calculation device according to claim 2, wherein: the search process includes: crossing over solution candidates, calculating an evaluation function of crossed over solution candidate, and executing a process of updating the solution candidate when a calculation value of the evaluation function is improved (see para. 7-13 and 19-20).
As to claim 4, Pei teaches the optimal solution calculation device according to claim 2, wherein: the optimal solution search unit determines a numerical number of repetitions of the search process using a calculation value of the evaluation function for the solution candidate (see para. 7-13 and 19-20).
As to claim 5, Pei teaches the optimal solution calculation device according to claim 2, wherein: the optimal solution search unit determines a numerical number of repetitions of the search process for a solution candidate having a smaller calculation value of the evaluation function to be larger than a numerical number of repetitions of the search process for a solution candidate having a larger calculation value of the evaluation function (see para. 7-13 and 19-20).
As to claim 6, Pei teaches the optimal solution calculation device according to claim 1, further comprising: at least one of (i) a circuit and (ii) a processor having a memory storing computer program code, wherein the at least one of the circuit and the processor having the memory is configured to cause the optimal solution calculation device to provide at least one of: the initial solution generation unit; and the optimal solution search unit (see para. 7-13 and 19-20).
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUSSEIN A EL CHANTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3999. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at 571-272-7691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HUSSEIN ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights